"Progressive Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg exploded in a dissent she read aloud to the court. She said the "long-concealed prosecutorial transgressions" toward Thompson showed a "gross, deliberately indifferent and long-continuing violation of his fair-trial right."
"I think very, very low of Mr. Connick," she said. "He was a politician. He wasn't worried about law."
However, the conservative majority ruling prevailed. The framed man gets nothing for 18 years wrongly locked in a steel cage. It's a cruel, unfair outcome..."
EDITORIAL; THE CHARLESTON GAZETTE;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: The case concerning a prisoner's exoneration is Connick v. Thompson, 09-571, which arose from a $14 million jury award in favor of a former inmate who was freed after prosecutorial misconduct came to light. The former inmate, John Thompson, sued officials in the district attorney's office in New Orleans, saying they had not trained prosecutors to turn over exculpatory evidence. A prosecutor there failed to give Mr. Thompson's lawyers a report showing that blood at a crime scene was not his. Mr. Thompson spent 18 years in prison, 14 in solitary confinement. He once came within weeks of being executed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sometimes, America's criminal justice system -- police, prosecutors, courts, prisons -- doesn't see accused suspects as human beings, but just as scumbags to be locked away as quickly as possible. This attitude can cause cruel outcomes. In extreme cases, police and prosecutors actually frame the innocent," the Charleston Gazette editorial published on April 10, 2011 under the heading, "Injustice: Railroaded victim," begins.
"In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court decreed that when prosecutors have evidence tending to prove the innocence of a suspect, they're honor-bound to inform the defense," the editorial continues.
"But sometimes they violate this mandate and hide evidence. An ugly case recently produced a disturbing outcome in the Supreme Court. Here's the saga:
Down in Louisiana in 1985, John Thompson was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. He spent 18 years in prison. Execution dates were set for him seven times.
Eventually, it was learned that Thompson was innocent. First, one of his prosecutors, on his deathbed, told a fellow prosecutor he had hidden a blood sample and test results showing that the murderer's blood type didn't match Thompson's. The fellow prosecutor concealed this confession for five more years.
Other hidden evidence: An eyewitness identification of the killer didn't match Thompson's appearance, but the defense wasn't told. An informant who fingered Thompson did so to get a reward from the victim's family, but again the defense wasn't told.
Altogether, five assistant prosecutors knew about this concealment. Their elected chief prosecutor was politician-lawyer Harry Connick Sr., father of the famed singer-actor-composer. The prosecutor's office had a record of hiding such exculpatory evidence, and Connick once was indicted by federal agents for the practice.
Private investigators finally uncovered this railroading, and Thompson was granted a new trial. Jurors took only a half-hour to rule him innocent. The unlucky man had spent 18 years in prison, mostly on death row, for a crime he didn't commit. He sued prosecutor Connick and won $14 million compensation from taxpayers.
But Louisiana appealed -- and right-wingers on the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Thompson's compensation by a narrow 5-4 vote. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the concealment of evidence by Connick's staff was an isolated incident.
Progressive Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg exploded in a dissent she read aloud to the court. She said the "long-concealed prosecutorial transgressions" toward Thompson showed a "gross, deliberately indifferent and long-continuing violation of his fair-trial right."
"I think very, very low of Mr. Connick," she said. "He was a politician. He wasn't worried about law."
However, the conservative majority ruling prevailed. The framed man gets nothing for 18 years wrongly locked in a steel cage. It's a cruel, unfair outcome.
This injustice shows the importance of electing progressive presidents who will appoint moderate, fair Supreme Court justices who see defendants as humans."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The editorial can be found at:
http://sundaygazettemail.com/Opinion/Editorials/201104100839
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
Labor’s 30 pieces of voting silver
5 hours ago
